A Question About Deception

What illusion is in the age of the earth? I feel that there is good evidence to support both a young earth and old earth hypothesis. In fact, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research give lengthy reasons for why they believe the earth is young, while Reasons to Believe gives lengthy reasons for why the age of the earth is very old. I guess I'd have to ask, what deception is there in that the earth is either young or old? Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old? I have to first ask this question in order to go into anything else.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Exactly. Speculation has led to a priori, ruling some things out of bounds before it even gives it a chnace to make an honest inquiry.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I can tell you this much, Dendrochronology fits a Young-earth model better than it does anything else. In fact, the oldest known tree is a bristlecone pine in California. Lovingly referred to as, "Methuselah," for obvious reasons, its almost 5,000 years old, which is concurrent with the postdiluvian era where seeds were beginning to regerminate the earth after the Deluge. Ancient Bristlecone Pine Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Addition

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

is off topic. However your argument is not based on dendrochronology - it's contradicted by dendrochronology. Think about it. Or start a ew topic if you can't work out why.t

I checked him out....a bit pantheistic at times, but obviously a humble man full of wisdom.

Though you and I seem to be on par for the most part, I disagree with this one instance. The geophysical effects of the earth's rotation would have concievably spun much faster in the past because the Earth loses its kinetic energy at a fairly constant rate that we've been able to quantify due to all forms of friction acting upon it, which is perfectly compatible with the 2nd Law. In fact, the US Naval Observatory has to add leap seconds continually just to keep the timekeeper accurate. We know the earth is slowing down, which means there wasn't a 24 hour day in the past, but much shorter, maybe as much as 21 hours. Extrapolating backwards at the same rate, if the earth was 4.5 billion years old, it would have spun so fast so as to make it inhabitable due to the Coriolis Effect. If the earth didn't slow at the same rate as it measurably is currently, then old-agers have to figure out why that is.That's the physical reason to help support a young-earth model. The Scriptural evidence can be found in Genesis. Moses stated, "In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed--the first day. Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened: God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed--the second day. Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared.
God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the third day. -Genesis 1:1-13Genesis 1 follows in this vein for all of the days. God gives him the distinction that it was day, then it was night, thus culminating in one day. So, the question is, why did he make such a distinction if it actually meant long epochs of geologic time?I'm not a YEC or an OEC. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I have not made a 100% determination on where I stand. But in these two instances I feel that the Young-earth model is best supported.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You can argue that point in this thread.The point I was making was that an arbitrary change in tree-ring growth rate would be deceptive.We see growth rings appearing two per year. If God had created full-grown trees with multiple rings, already in place, that would suggest to us that the tree was much older - i.e. it would be a deception.My broader point was in relation to Buzsaw's analogy of a one-day-growing corn plant. I pointed out that dating a corn plant would not be that easy (though others mentioned ways of doing it), so I thought tree-rings were a better analogy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Osborne was a Westerner and a disciple of Ramana and this is from one of his books. The book is available free in pdf format on the the internet. It does differ doctrinally in some key areas with Christian dogma as I understand it. There are Hindu dualists also who deny Advaita and teach either Davaita or a modified non dualism as they feel themselves to have a separate reality so dualism vs. non-dualism is not strictly divided East and West by any means.I appreciate your willingness to see value outside your chosen tradition.lfen

We know that the Earth's rotation is only slowing by .005 seconds per year. Adding that up over 4.5 billion years, that's nowhere near fast enough to spin everybody off the planet or whatever nonsense. It's just a 14-hour day. Moreover, the rate at which the Earth is slowing today is faster than the rate at which it slowed in the past, due to harmonic reasonance with the Earth's oceans.We can verify this model, as well. Fossil corals preserve daily records of growth. From these fossils, we know that Earth's day was 22 hours long about 370 million years ago, which is entirely consistent with the model.It's entirely inconsistent with the scenario you've describe above. 5000 years ago, the Earth's day would have been only 25 seconds shorter - not a whole three hours as you assert. CE011: Earth's rotation slowing

quote:

---

Just by looking at the earth around you, what determination have you made that the earth is either young or old?

---

Starlight.

Sorry, I was just skimming this topic for the relationship to my {perceptions of reality} topic and came across this: There is a common misconception that having evidence for a concept is sufficient to give it some credence.Let's consider the "Flat Earth" concept: the evidence of our eyes and our feeling of solidy on a (predominately) stable earth that is not perceptably moving (except in california) is that the earth is fixed and that the sun and stars rotate overhead. We still talk of sunrise and sunset, moonrise and moonset and the rise and setting of stars and planets.But the "Flat Earth" is not a concept that most people give much credence to -- why? Because there is sufficient accessible evidence that the earth is round and orbits the sun -- evidence that invalidates the "Flat Earth" concept that cannot be refuted (only denied).Having evidence FOR the "Flat Earth" concept is not sufficient to give it credence because of evidence that invalidates it.For a concept to have credence not only must there be evidence for it, there cannot be evidence that invalidates it.The evidence for an OLD earth invalidates the concept of a YOUNG earth and needs to be refuted (not denied) for a YOUNG earth model to have any credence.The evidence for a YOUNG earth does not invalidate the concept of an OLD earth, because the question is not what the minimum age of things you can find is, but what the maximum age of things you can find is.It is easy to find things that are younger than the maximum age, just as it is easy to find certain specific situations where dating methods can have problems. These do not refute the evidence of old age. My determination of the evidence of a minimum age of the earth that vastly exceeds a YOUNG earth model is at:
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)< !--UE-->It is not just the evidence itself but the correlations between the different forms of evidence that all come to the same dates in spite of being based on entirely different mechanisms.For this to be possible AND have a YOUNG earth there would indeed need to be massive deception in the creation of all this evidence as well as all the other evidence that shows a consistent old age of the earth.There would have to be sufficient deception that one would be as justified in believing in a flat earth as in believing in a young earth.Enjoy.ps That's where I start. LOL.pss -- there's more? Correct. See the part on Talking Coral Heads in my thread linked above. False. (and I think you mean uninhabitable). Of course this also would have made the earth fly apart and self-destruct if it were true. It's not a linear relationship. There is research on it that shows you what the correct calculations involve -- from basic astrophysics (without needing relativity) Good. Study the evidence.Edited by RAZD, : added endEdited by RAZD, : added second ps ... oh my.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Exactly. LOL. Something we agree on? Enjoy the irony eh?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The 'evidence' of a young earth is based on scientific ignorance and self deception. Yes, we can just look around us, and see that the earth is much older than 6-12,000 years. Just look at the layers of sandstone that get deposited one season at a time, and we can eliminate the 'young earth'. Look at the layers of yearly snowfall in glaciers, and we can eliminate that as a hypthosis.

What do you mean by the age appearing after something was initially created? are you proposing some kind of fast forward process? doesn't it make more sense to take the appearance of age in face value as an indication of true age? What is to prevent things changing again then? Today jesus is our saviour. Tomorrow due to an unexpected change in the programming, he never even existed and we never heard of him either. Your logic is set on shiftsand, it would seem...

Perhaps another way to look at this is to assert that God is not so much deceptive as humanity is paranoid.

Just because something does not line up with our human empirical knowledge does not mean we are being deceived. Perhaps there is a deeper lesson in our intentions versus our perceptions and conclusions.

​

Does it not say that in order to enter Heaven, one must be as a child? Children can allow for stretches of imagination that adults often reject as "silly". There are no deep Gnostic teachings that superced the simple faith of a child.

​

Does God owe it to humanity to have made everything in a way that humans can understand? Do humans owe God the courtesy of being logically consistant within our comprehension?

​

I suspect that God foreknew our misgivings long before we had the words to express them.